Ford Releases 2015 F-150 Fuel-Economy Numbers

7 IMG_9513 II

Ford just announced EPA-estimated fuel economy numbers for all four engines in the 2015 Ford F-150, in both four- and two-wheel drive configurations and the numbers, as expected, are pretty good. Some will note the new F-150 did not beat the Ram EcoDiesel (3.0-liter V-6 turbo-diesel with an eight-speed transmission), but when compared to other gasoline competitors, the new half-ton offers mpgs comparable to or better than the midsize pickup players, yet offers more than 50 percent more max payload and towing. To read our first-drive impressions, click here

To date, the half-ton pickup truck with the best fuel-economy numbers in the industry is the Ram 1500 two-wheel-drive EcoDiesel V-6 with 20/28 mpg city/highway; Ram's 3.6-liter naturally aspirated V-6 gets 17/25mpg city/highway. Both versions are mated to the eight-speed transmissions. Chevrolet and GMC's half-ton V-6 pickups (two-wheel drive) have EPA ratings of 18/24 mpg city/highway.

Here's what we know from Ford:

2015 Naturally Aspirated Engines

  • 4x2 F-150 3.5-liter V-6: 18/25/20 mpg city/highway/combined
  • 4x4 F-150 3.5-liter V-6: 17/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined
  • (2014 F-150 4x2 3.7-liter V-6: 17/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined)
  • 4x2 F-150 5.0-liter V-8: 15/22/18 mpg city/highwaycombined
  • 4x4 F-150 5.0-liter V-8: 15/21/17 mpg city/highway/combined
  • (2014 F-150 4x2 5.0-liter V-8: 15/21/17 mpg city/highway/combined)

2015 EcoBoost Twin Turbos

  • 4x2 F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6: 19/26/22 mpg city/highway/combined
  • 4x4 F-150 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6: 18/23/20 mpg city/highway/combined
  • (2014 F-150: no equivalent)
  • 4x2 F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6: 17/24/20 mpg city/highway/combined
  • 4x4 F-150 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6: 17/23/19 mpg city/highway/combined
  • (2014 F-150 4x2 3.5-liter V-6: 16/22/18 mpg city/highway/combined)
  • (2014 F-150 4x2 6.2-liter V-8: 13/18/15 mpg city/highway/combined)

Editor's note: This post was updated on Nov. 21 to include combined mileage ratings. images by Mark Williams

  2015 Ford F-150 Driveline performance numbers:

Screen Shot 2014-11-21 at 7.20.38 AM

Ford's all-new 2.7-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine — with twin turbos, compacted graphite block and aluminum heads — is likely to be the most popular engine choice. 

11 IMG_9527 II



@ Alex. LOL thanks man. I needed that.

I have to say this .. these are NOT what I was expecting. Look at the base engine..less power and torque and barely more MPG.

Maybe when the 8 speed tranny comes out?

Maybe I will keep my 4.6 Tundra.

And which engine will last longer? Turbo'd gas motors are known to have a shorter life span then a normally aspirated one and much shorter then a Diesel turbo.

Boy all you Ford guys make me laugh. First of all this millage figures are for a single cab with no heavy options. Trucktrend tested a XLT crewcab 2.7 and they average 16.9 mpg. Just go to and read it for your self

In real life MPG tests a diesel will always trump a gas engine. When towing a trailer, a diesel will always trump a gas engine. If the 2.7L Ecoboost is rated for 26mpg highway and you go tow a 8,500lb trailer with it, that mpg is going to do down to 8-9mpg. Unlike with a diesel, in this discussion the 3.0L RAM ecodiesel, its still getting 16-20 mpg towing a 8,500lb trailer at interstate speeds of 75 mph+. That's what we have been seeing with our 3.0L RAM ecodiesel towing 8,500lb trailer loads. Generally it hasn't dipped past 16 mpg towing unless you get extreme crosswinds factored in with interstate speeds with that load. So if your towing 25% of the time or more with a half ton truck, this debate becomes pretty lopsided. Just doing empty city runs, your averaging 24-26 mpg. You wont achieve those averages with either of the ecoboost engines.

Name one truck engine that has BOTH better power and fuel economy than the 2.7 EB or any of these. You can't. The EB are about the combination of these. You can find more power but not better FE. You can find better FE but not with more power.

As stated before this gets better fuel economy than the smaller colorado while making far more power and torque offering far great capabilities.

Seriously Orgil? The Ecodiesel has almost 100ft lbs more torque and 2MPG better... so there's one for starters.

Hook them up at 90% of their GCWR and the loss is even more embarrassing for Ford.

The EcoDiesel has 45 lb-ft more than the 2.7, not 100 lb-ft. The 2.7 has 85 more horsepower. The 2.7 has a $795 premium, the EcoDiesel has a $4,270 premium (over the standard V6s)

In 4WD trim, the Ram EcoDiesel is 4MPG better than the 2.7.
Real world fuel economy is going to be 6 MPG difference, maybe 7.

The fact that the 2.7 Ecoboost drops 3MPG going from 4x2 to 4x4 tells me the 4x2 26MPG is an absolute PIPE DREAM. No other truck is rated to drop 3MPG between 4x2 and 4x4. The HWY Fuel economy for the 2.7 4x4 Ecoboost at 23 is dead even with the Pentastar 4x4.

The real difference here is the Ecodiesel will outperform it's EPA numbers and the Ecoboost will never reach its numbers.

@ devilsadvocate

Actually you are incorrect. The Ecodiesel has 420 lb-ft of torque and the 2.7L Ecoboost had 375 lb-ft. Where you come up with 45 lb-ft being "almost a 100 lb-ft difference is beyond me. The horsepower difference is close to a 100 hp difference, but that is a negative for the Ecodiesel with it having just 240 hp versus the 2.7L Ecoboost having 325 hp. Also, as I pointed out earlier, just because the Ecodiesel has more mpg, it does not have a better cost per mile with today's average fuel prices. The 2.7L Ecoboost would have a better cost per mile with those EPA numbers.

As for the hooking up of trailers.........

2.7 EcoBoost with 4x4 comes with a 3.55 axle. The other 4x4 Fords have 3.31.

Ecodeisel 4x4 at 27 mpg has a 3.21 axle.

This tells me the Ecodiesel cannot stand up to a bigger axle AND get to 27 mpg. It had a bigger axle it would lose mpg's.

That is one sweet looking truck in the fist pic there, they must be stripping that truck down to the frame to get that payload, man if that's true, you will not need a HD to haul a big fifth wheel around...


Those are axle ratios, not sizes. And the Ecodiesel also comes in 3.55 or 3.92. I am not saying the Ecodiesel is better in my opinion, but facts are facts.

@All, Bigger number.

The standard ratio number on the Ecodisel is 3.21.

The standard on the 2.7 4x4 is 3.55 On the other 4x4 F150s it is 3.31

People want to know why the 2.7 drops 3, and others didn't, this is part of the reason. People want to know why the Ecodiesel eeked out 27/28, the 3.21 axle is part of the reason.

These are the facts.

"And the Ecodiesel also comes in 3.55 or 3.92"

But not standard. The standard 3.21 is used for the EPA numbers. See my other posts for the point I'm trying to make.

I am a huge Ford fan first off. But you cannot deny the following truths in the PR biz.

PR people know the following...
Good news to present= bring it out on Monday or Tuesday for all the world to discuss and debate all week long.

Not so good news to present= bring it out on Friday and it will be forgotten by many before the weekend is over.

Not that this is bad news, just that it doesn't give Ford the huge bragging rights that they might have hoped for.

Nick you are exactly right. Despite what kbb or nada say you can get significantly more selling a diesel than selling gas. Depending on where you are located in the country you could see more than enough difference to pay for the initial cost. I have a 2007 gmc classic duramax that i bought used in 09 that still books for what i paid for it 5yr and 100000 miles later. Diesel will always hold its value better than gas and if you tow anything the mileage difference is much more significant.

The Eco diesel traps speed in the 1/4 mile at 80 mph. That is on par with early 1980's 4 cylinder econo cars. Breydon is it is down on hp. The ram ecodiesel has comparative numbers as well as comparable performance as a 6.5 gm turbo diesel that they had in 1/2 tons back in the early 90's. Once these ecodiesel buyers get having a diesel out of there system they will realize the hemi is such more of a truck at a cheaper purchase price and operation cost.

These numbers are interesting.

I do agree that Ford PR has over-hyped mpg but since when do PR departments do otherwise?

It is getting tougher for car companies to gain mpg advantages.
That is obvious.

Ford going to the Ecoboost line over V8's is a strategy that goes well beyond mpg..........
think about it for a minute..........

How many vehicles could Ford possibly put a small 2.7 TTDI engine into?
Same can be said for the EB3.5 TTDI engine.

That is what Ford's engine strategy is REALLY about - cost amortization over multiple platforms. One Ford - Global....
V8's aren't a global phenomenon in anything other than luxury cars. V6's are the global standard.

Aluminum - it should of improved mpg city more than highway. The one factor that needs to be taken in consideration is payload and towing.
Name a 1/2 ton crewcab out their with a 3K payload that will get these advertised numbers?
Name a 1/2 ton crewcab out their with a 12K tow rating that will get these advertised numbers?

On top of that, the only truck that will stand a chance in a shootout will be the 6.2 Chevy.
The 5.7 Hemi already lost a few shootouts to the EB3.5 with the older heavier F150.

MPG is only part of the picture. Performance matters more to truck owners and Ford should have an advantage due to a lighter truck.

mpg is just an advertising red herring.

Is that all they got for MPGs? Unbelievable

Well most know if you drive them in the rain the MPGs drop by 40% just before the crap out.

Ford is falling way behind the powertrain department.

I do agree that Ford PR has over-hyped
Posted by: Lou_BC | Nov 21, 2014 3:34:04 PM

I do agree with Lou-BC. Ford has over-hyped. That's why I'm sticking with RAM.


28 MPG


Let's wait and see what the REAL mpg numbers once this thing hits the highway. I have a '13 F-150 with the V6....fairly decent power but drinks gas like a V8.

The fuel economy that will impress me is what any of MFR's will do loaded or towing to its max rating.

Single diget fuel economy numbers will not do it for me.
Not acceptable.

@ are absolutely 100% wrong on the Ecodiesel gear ratios. Standard gear ratio is 3.55, 3.92 is optional. These are the only 2 options.

Pentastar and Hemi are both 3.21 standard. Optional gear for the Pentastar is 3.55. Hemi optional gear is 3.92.

This applies to all cabs. Outdoorsman trim is usually a 3.92 gear.

Hmmm. So I guess Ram wins right? Because... ???

Posted by: Toycrusher | Nov 21, 2014 12:54:43 PM

Because they get epa credits and can still offer me my kick @$$ Hemi. ;--)

Anybody else notice a lot of anti-diesel commentary on forums recently? A lot of the comments sound angry and argumentative without reason (I'm not directing this at anyone in particular). Almost like they are trying to pick a fight for fun or have been hired by someone.

Anyways, the numbers are around where I expected but not as high as I hoped. Thought aluminum would help the city numbers more then it did. Loving those payload numbers! I don't understand the ecodiesel's payload numbers, our e39 wagon has a higher payload than my neighbor's ecodiesel crew cab...

I can't imagine a turbo gas being much cheaper maintenance or manufacturing wise then a turbo diesel. Claiming $1.00 gallon difference in fuel prices is a bit ridiculous and short-sighted. Gas prices have fallen faster then diesel the past couple of months, but in my last 10 years of diesel ownership (Golf TDI & 06 DMAX) diesel has hovered near premium for the most part.

I'm looking to replace the golf & duramax with 1 vehicle in the next year or two. Love the Ford's payload #s (similar to my 2500!) and aluminum just seems cool to me. Ecodiesel needs to improve payload to get my attention again. Colorado ZR2 DMAX, if it could maintain payload/tow ratings, will by mighty tempting. Part of the equation will be how much my wife will let me downsize our trailer.

F-150 economy falls short of Ram diesel

by Bill Cawthon • Posted on November 21, 2014
At long last, Ford has announced the estimated fuel economy ratings for the F-150 pickup with the 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine and a six-speed automatic transmission. The new, aluminum-bodied pickup has been rated at 19 mpg city, 26 mpg highway, and 22 mpg combined.

Ram fuel economy vs Ford F-150

The Ram 1500 3.0-liter EcoDiesel is rated at 20 mpg city, 28 mpg highway, and 23 mpg combined. The same truck with the Pentastar 3.6-liter V6 is rated at 17 mpg city, 25 mpg highway, and 20 mpg combined.

The Ford F-150 XL carries a MSRP of $26,215 plus $1,195 destination; the Ram’s price for a V6 Tradesman is $25,060.

With all the troubles that are developing on the Ecodiesel they are going to be right up there in the history books with the 6.0 powerstroke in terms of how bad they are. They are even starting to lose motors once they start getting a few miles.

What are the cab configurations of the published FE ratings??
What are the weights of the tested configurations?
What are the gear ratios?
Why is their a 3MPG drop between 2wd and 4wd in the Ecoboost 2.7?? Has to be gears, GM its usually 1?

I applaud Ford for trying, I know Ford does use lower gears usually, they balance ability and fuel economy, GM loves highways gears, I am a big GM fan btw.

2015 Chevrolet 4x4 with 6.2 and 8 speed matches the Ford 5.0 FE, went up 1 city and 1 highway, most likely the same result for the 5.3

2015 Chevrolet 4x4 with 5.3 and 6 speed gets 16/22, so expect 17/23 with 8 speed.

2015 Chevrolet 4x4 with 4.3 and 6 speed gets 17/23, expect 18/24 with 8 speed.

No reason to get the 2.7 if you want 4wd.


So they haven't lost some motors, they don't have issues with CEL's, they don't have issues with cracked down pipes that basically fills the cab with exhaust fumes???? All you have to do is google ram ecodiesel problems? They cel is a common enough thing to have tsb on it and they start throwing sensors at it. Last time I took my hd cummins for service they had 2 in there getting cel lights addressed and the mechanic said they come in constantly with issues. Do they have regeneration, urea, and these vm diesels running around with 5500 lbs truck constantly in Europe?

Here is another way to look at this "experiment" by Ford with the F-150.

Ford makes two Class 2 pickups, now lets compare the two. Remember these vehicles are from the same manufacturer.

One an aluminium truck vs a lightweight high tensile steel truck.

The new F-150's highway FE is slightly worse than the Rangers combined FE or city/country and that's with the Rangers biggest engine. Or the new F-150's urban FE is slightly better than the Rangers combined FE.

Win to the Ranger.

The Ranger is superior off road.

Both would be very equivalent in crash testing. The Ranger is a 5 Star ENCAP and I would suspect the new F-150 would be in that range.

Both trucks can carry similar and tow similar according to how you buy the F-150. But overall the heavier payload trucks will not be the biggest sellers. So I would assume the average GCM of the vehicles would come out very similar.

It seems the Ranger is Ford's best pickup as a tool. The F-150 might be all fancy and hyped up but the Ranger concept is a cheaper and better solution.

The new F-150 is a nice vehicle, but so is an Audi or that AMG G Wagen pickup. But I do think this isn't as practical.

Statements that infer that aluminium increases load capacity etc fail to recognise that this could of been done by retuning the suspension.

All this for ONE MPG. Billions of wasted subsidised government loans costing the taxpayer.

Why you must ask? Think about it. Would this vehicle have even of been considered if there was more competition in the vehicle segment? It really is a waste, even as nice as this truck is.

HEMI V8 will get a 2015 Power Wagon, a 2015 Charger Hellcats and a 2016 Grand Cherokee Limited for the wife!

If your considering an Eco diesel you guys need to do your homework. The forums are loaded with problems with these. He is just a very small portion of people with issues.

I hear it took Ford so long because they were waiting for consistent 25mph tailwinds.

I was hoping for 27-29. None of the math I did could come out at 30. Even 29 seemed far-fetched considering the weight loss Ford announced. So I'm not surprised at these numbers. 26 for the 2.7 is very good considering how much power it makes. It beats the V6's in the market and makes the torque of a V8.

Where I live, diesel is an even worse deal than the previously posted Texas price. In SC we're paying 2.56 for 87 with 10% ethanol and diesel is 3.20-3.30. Nobody should be lining up for an Ecodiesel with those numbers. If you bought a gallon of diesel and then bought the equivalent value of 87, that 26 mpg 2.7 liter would go about 32.5 miles. The Ecodiesel is a marketing gimmick. It exists to brag about MPG to people who don't calculate the cost. For the Ecodiesel to be worth it, diesel prices where you live have to be less than 8% higher than 87. That's not including the added cost of buying the engine (and financing it) and the DEF fluid. The reason Ford isn't making a diesel half-ton is because it just isn't economical for most of the country and I haven't heard of any place where it is.

It's really annoying when people without an Ecoboost say it doesn't make the advertised MPG. My 2011 4x4 full-cab with 3.55 gears is supposed to get 17/21. I can easily get 21 highway. People forget that most of fuel economy is how fast you drive. The driver is usually to blame. Going 65 I get 22-23. If I fill up with ethanol-free gas it increases about 12% to around 24-25. Not to mention the 3.5 ecoboost actually makes more power on the dyno than the outgoing 6.2 liter V8.

For those people asserting that Ford waited to release the numbers because they weren't great, this is normal business practice. You don't give definitives about your next product until you reduce the inventory of the old product to a comfortable amount, not to mention the fact that they needed to test the trucks, including the ones that just started rolling off the assembly line, to ensure they got predictable mileage and then send them to the EPA. Apple doesn't tell what their new products are going to be until soon before they launch because people would stop buying the old ones and wait. Then Apple gets stuck with old inventory that they have to discount.
Aluminum provided a moderate increase in fuel economy. A new transmission will increase that gain in the future, but the move to aluminum had to be done. In the future we can expect ford to reduce the costs of making aluminum bodies. They'll make more vehicles out of aluminum and we'll benefit from the better mileage.

For anyone looking for a good cost breakdown of why the Ecodiesel isn't economical, refer to's own article:

I agree beast it's not an engine issue but it is a very common ecodiesel truck issue. But even new sensors doesn't solve the problems. That is why I asked if they have regen and urea in Europe. Vm has never had to deal with this type of emmissions bolted to there motor. I don't think they have 15ppm sulfur diesel over there yet cause there emmissions are less strict. There have been eco diesels even blow up. Either way the Eco diesels are far from reliable with all the reported problems.

I'll just wait 2018 F-150 facelift with 1.1 liter ecoboost and Tonka plastic fenders, hopefully by then it will make 20 city/ 28 highway

Funny to see Z-viera hyping the ecodiesel considering his past rants about diesel engines......... and his multiple start/stops in a day.

The Ford F-150 XL carries a MSRP of $26,215 plus $1,195 destination; the Ram’s price for a V6 Tradesman is $25,060.
Posted by: HEMI V8 | Nov 21, 2014 3:54:49 PM

@CT, They are talking about the pentastar V6. Your eco burst want hold the rated MPG when towing like the eco diesel will.

Sorry, Ford still has some catching up to do. Even with their beer can glued truck they still cant beat Ram the class leader AGAIN!

Now imagine Ram with a new steel body that is not only lighter than steel but stronger.

Now imagine Ram with a new steel body that is not only lighter than Aluminum but stronger.

CT, also diesel will out last a gas engine and have better resale.

Ram has class leading mpg's and a class leading 1/2 ton diesel. After nissan lets there cummins out ram will be down to class leading mpg's 1/2 ton across there entire market. They lost all there class leading claims in the hd market. The ram is becoming the Prius of the truck market.

Scott, there is a pcm flash that has fixed the CEL issue. Ecodiesels are going to have very bad coked valve issues without a catch can. Time will tell how the lubrication system is working, and if the timing chain holds up, but I am guessing that it is robust enough to last the 10k miles specified for the OCI.

Currently diesels in the US do not make financial sense for most buyers. They are hamstrung by emissions rules and are currently running more expensive fuel. If you chip out the DPF and SCR, remove the DPF, swap a water/methanol injection system in (use the SCR tank for water/methanol storage) you now have a diesel the way it should be. With those modifications you could probably hit +20% power + 20% fe for the ecodiesel. At that point it is going to be cost effective for many buyers. Very few are going to modify their trucks at all though, particularly not to that degree. I don't even know if a tuner exists to kill the SCR system on the ecodiesel.

The equalizer will come if the EPA cuts the hypocrisy bullshit and begins to require all direct injected gasoline engines to be fitted with a particulate filter. That will slaughter the mileage of all DI gasoline engines, and will be particularly devastating for Ford's ecoboost engines. At that point diesels become very attractive.

Ram has class leading mpg's and a class leading 1/2 ton diesel. After nissan lets there cummins out ram will be down to class leading mpg's 1/2 ton across there entire market. They lost all there class leading claims in the hd market. The ram is becoming the Prius of the truck market.

Posted by: Scott | Nov 21, 2014 5:05:06 PM

I am all for it. So they can still offer the Eco @$$ kicking Hemi.

Lol, Ford is the prius of the truck world with a V6 kicking it's V8 in the nuts. lol

@Axle, And what do we know about the all new 2.7 eco burst?
I know one thing.The Hemi is proven over all the Eco's

The VM diesel has been around for a number of years now.

The US was the last country to receive them in vehicles.

I do know that FCA is having computer glitches with the diesel Grand Cherokee's here. But that has nothing to actually do with the physical engine.

The VM itself is a very reliable unit. What's around the engine might not be the same.


"It's on pair with Europe diesel right now."

what is????

"pair" of what?

The VM Motori 3.0 IS European........ face palm.......... que Homer Simpson... "DOH"

Odd, I address Z-viera and Beast answers.

Ram hemi is a good truck. But still not up to par with gm's 6.2 and fords 3.5 ecoboost.

@Big Al from Oz -

"The VM itself is a very reliable unit. What's around the engine might not be the same."


Guys have been saying the exact thing about Cummins for decades.

there must be a correlation......

and Consumer Reports studies are flawed.... ROTFLMFAO

@z-viera - I mentioned fine particulate and TTDI engines a while back and cited articles talking about it.

Big Al and i talked about it a few times.

Odd how it becomes news from your camp when slagging Ford...........

For once it is nice to see you agree with me.

Fine particulate DPF and DEF will hurt TTDI engines in a big way if and when those regulations get implemented.

Ram hemi is a good truck. But still not up to par with gm's 6.2 and fords 3.5 ecoboost.

Posted by: Scott | Nov 21, 2014 5:30:53 PM

Really, maybe you didn't see where the Hemi spanked the Eco burst in the last 1/2 ton shoot out.

The comments to this entry are closed.